What to make of the Weekly Standard’s publication of a leaked memo from neocon Pentagon official, Douglas Feith, to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Well, I’m not someone used to reading classified CIA documents and being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. But reading Stephen Hayes’ summary of the document, I have to say this strikes me as a Big Deal. So far, the liberal media outlets seem to have ignored this, and it didn’t help that the Weekly Standard’s website was down for a while. Anti-war reporter Walter Pincus, in the Washington Post, has this mention of the memo:
Yesterday, allegations of new evidence of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda contained in a classified annex attached to Feith’s Oct. 27 letter to leaders of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were published in the Weekly Standard. Feith had been asked to support his July 10 closed-door testimony about such connections. The classified annex summarized raw intelligence reports but did not analyze them or address their accuracy, according to a senior administration official familiar with the matter.
But reading Hayes’ summary, you find plenty of CIA analysis of various bits of information, and assessments of varying reliability. Maybe the analysis isn’t thorough or skeptical enough for Pincus but it sure exists – and seems to baldly contradict Pincus’ piece. I don’t trust Pincus anyway. He’s about as reliable as David Sanger at the NYT: two anti-war partisans who have regularly spun their journalism to criticize the administration’s conduct of the war. His Sunday story is based on notes from Anthony Cordesman – and flagged as the number one story on AOL. Why isn’t the CIA’s own analysis as valid? I guess it wouldn’t buttress Pincus’ agenda. So let’s get other skeptics to show us why the data presented is faulty. Marshall? Pollack? Klein? Hersh? Until then …
The Dish 